The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[sept79]

One has to wonder what Quintavalle sees in his mirror every morning . . . . .

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The problem here is quite different. It's not just a problem of believing or not Quintavalle. If a judge thinks Quintavalle is a liar, than a proper rationale about why the witness is a liar has to be presented. Even more if the witness was already assessed as reliable by a previous judge: in that event, a correct judge who had a doubt, should have at least summoned Quintavalle for a questioning in order to assess his reliability. You need to understand that by Italian law, a witness is not lying unless proven otherwise. There needs to be some evidence to dismiss a witness on suspicion of lying. So at least some research has to be done, some proper argument has to be presented.

What does Italian law do in a situation where someone is simply mistaken or misremembering? Everything is not black and white; there are gray areas and multiple reasons for remembering incorrectly. Humans are notoriously horrible at remembering what they witness. Does Italian law not take into account the known factors with memory? You make it so it is either 100% correct or the witness is a rotten liar. This is not realistic and I can't believe Italian law does not allow for a middle ground.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

I can't believe Italian law does not allow for a middle ground.

LOL!

 

[TruthCalls]

What does Italian law do in a situation where someone is simply mistaken or misremembering? Everything is not black and white; there are gray areas and multiple reasons for remembering incorrectly. Humans are notoriously horrible at remembering what they witness. Does Italian law not take into account the known factors with memory? You make it so it is either 100% correct or the witness is a rotten liar. This is not realistic and I can't believe Italian law does not allow for a middle ground.

Mach, like Massei and Nencini before him, think there is no reason for Quintavalle to lie and therefore there is no reason to question his testimony. It's a ploy to evade the real issue of false memory. As mentioned earlier, Quintavalle was shown a color picture of Amanda just days after the murder. Quintavalle noted he had seen her in the store before but always in the presence of Raffaele. So he knows who the police are asking about. His saying she was always in the presence of Raffaele proves that at that point Quintavalle had never seen Amanda at the store alone. Quintavalle says he didn't mention Amanda when asked because he didn't know if she had bought Ace bleach. This is nonsense. If the police are asking you about someone shopping in your store, and you know who the person is, and you saw them then you will tell the police they were there but your not sure if they purchased anything. Quintavalle might have been lying (i.e., deliberately misrepresenting the facts) but much more likely is that over the course of the year his recollections have become muddied and at the behest of the cub reporter he came to believe he saw something he didn't think he saw just days after the murder.

Consider Curatolo's testimony. He claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele on the same evening the disco buses were operating and people were dressed in costume. But he also says the next day he sees the SP in their white overalls. Obviously this can't be since Halloween is 31 Oct and the SP were at the cottage on 2 Nov. So should we consider Curatolo is lying? Not according to the courts, which dismisses Curatolo's testimony regarding the buses and costumes because, per the ISC, Amanda and Raffaele weren't at Piazza Grimana on Halloween. They therefore conclude that he simply has a false memory on this point. However, that he claims the day after seeing them he sees the SP in white is indisputable.

So it would seem the courts, and some PGP, have a very selective interpretation regarding how memories work and when they are false and when they are indisputable.

 

[Vixen]

The luminol doesn't have to meet a rigorous beyond reasonable doubt threshold to be established as circumstantial evidence, true, but it does have to meet a rigorous beyond reasonable doubt threshold to be required in a defense re-construction theory.

The defense isn't obligated to explain the luminol, merely to cast reasonable doubt on it being connected to the murder and connected to AK. The defense has established this doubt by pointing out that the stains could match almost any female sized foot, tested negative for TMB, and negative for MK's DNA, and no further prosecution testing proved MK's blood. From there it isn't necessary for the defense to explain the exact origin of the stains, merely to cast doubt on them.

You then turn around and state that a defense theory of the crime that doesn't explain the stains is incoherent. This is a tautological reconstruction of saying the stains by themselves prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't. They're very weak circumstantial evidence that the defense has well undermined.




The black car was identified and with the broken down car waiting for the tow truck. They all reported a quiet empty cottage.

Here's my theory of the crime and the corresponding evidence:

-Guede scouted the cottage as a potential burglary target (Evidence: picked up on CCTV)

-Guede smashed the upper window with a large heavy rock, and climbed up and in through the window (Evidence: the rock was proven to be thrown from outside, Guede has a history of rock throwing window climbing break-ins)

-Guede snooped around a bit then went to the toilet (Evidence: open drawer in one of the flatmates room)

-Guede was surprised on the toiler by Meredith's unexpected return (Evidence: unflushed crap in the toilet, Guede's testimony)

-Guede either attempted to escape and encountered the double dead bolt lock, or confronted Meredith right away, either way he eventually attacked her, grabbed her, and stabbed her (Evidence: 3 knife wounds matching a single small switchblade/penknife)

-Guede sexually assaulted Meredith (Evidence: tore bra off, Guede's DNA from rapekit)

-Guede went into the bathroom to clean himself up and grab towels (Evidence: Guede's testimony, blood and footprint in the bathroom)

-Guede got bloody water on his foot while cleaning and made the footprint before putting his shoes back on. (Evidence: bloody bare print on the bathmat)

-Guede went back into the room, rummaged through Meredith purse for goodies her lifeless corpse posed no further obstacle to, stepped in blood, and walked out leaving a trail of blood (Evidence: Guede's DNA on the purse, 16 bloody footprints)

-Guede hit the locked front door, turned back, got Meredith's keys, and left for the final time, locking Meredith's door behind him (Evidence: Meredith's locked door)

Now let's see your reconstruction, this should be good.

Oh dear. You forgot to mention Rudy's skin colour. Isn't that one of your key criteria for assessing innocence or guilt?

 

[Vixen]

Mach, like Massei and Nencini before him, think there is no reason for Quintavalle to lie and therefore there is no reason to question his testimony. It's a ploy to evade the real issue of false memory. As mentioned earlier, Quintavalle was shown a color picture of Amanda just days after the murder. Quintavalle noted he had seen her in the store before but always in the presence of Raffaele. So he knows who the police are asking about. His saying she was always in the presence of Raffaele proves that at that point Quintavalle had never seen Amanda at the store alone. Quintavalle says he didn't mention Amanda when asked because he didn't know if she had bought Ace bleach. This is nonsense. If the police are asking you about someone shopping in your store, and you know who the person is, and you saw them then you will tell the police they were there but your not sure if they purchased anything. Quintavalle might have been lying (i.e., deliberately misrepresenting the facts) but much more likely is that over the course of the year his recollections have become muddied and at the behest of the cub reporter he came to believe he saw something he didn't think he saw just days after the murder.

Consider Curatolo's testimony. He claims he saw Amanda and Raffaele on the same evening the disco buses were operating and people were dressed in costume. But he also says the next day he sees the SP in their white overalls. Obviously this can't be since Halloween is 31 Oct and the SP were at the cottage on 2 Nov. So should we consider Curatolo is lying? Not according to the courts, which dismisses Curatolo's testimony regarding the buses and costumes because, per the ISC, Amanda and Raffaele weren't at Piazza Grimana on Halloween. They therefore conclude that he simply has a false memory on this point. However, that he claims the day after seeing them he sees the SP in white is indisputable.

So it would seem the courts, and some PGP, have a very selective interpretation regarding how memories work and when they are false and when they are indisputable.

Both Quintavalle and Curatalo gave testimony and were cross-examined by all parties.

It is the prerogative of the court to accept their testimony or dismiss it.

They accepted it.

Accept it.

Fact found.

By a court of law.

 

[Stacyhs]

Odd also that no CCTV camera caught her and that she got up so early, made the trip to the store, waited for it to open and then left without buying anything. Confirmation bias can make anything seem rational and Mach, like Vixen, is owned by it.

Exactly. Why would she deliberately go to the store, wait for it to open, and then buy nothing? If she had just killed her roommate the night before and was in the process of cleaning it up, she would not have been out browsing the local corner store for no reason. Obviously, she would have gone there with the intention of buying something in particular. The police believed it was bleach, but there was already a bottle and a half of bleach in Sollecito's bathroom so there was no need to buy bleach.

To conclude she was actually at the store that morning contradicts all logic. But when has that ever stopped some people from believing it?

 

[bagels]

Oh dear. You forgot to mention Rudy's skin colour. Isn't that one of your key criteria for assessing innocence or guilt?

It was relatively simple for me to quickly throw together a coherent linear theory of the crime because I'm basically just listing the evidence, unfiltered, from the crime scene and witness reports.

The PGP have a much tougher job, because they have to invent a fantasy scenario out of thin air that didn't happen - a killer sex game between three strangers that just met and spoke different languages - and then try to constrain it within the boundaries of the known evidence. It's why there isn't, in 100,000 posts, a single PGP theory of the crime, let alone one casually thrown out on a whim in seconds like mine. Good luck!

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh dear. You forgot to mention Rudy's skin colour. Isn't that one of your key criteria for assessing innocence or guilt?

Oh, dear. Careful or you won't be the only one reporting someone else for making personal attacks to the mods.

 

[Stacyhs]

Both Quintavalle and Curatalo gave testimony and were cross-examined by all parties.

It is the prerogative of the court to accept their testimony or dismiss it.

They accepted it.

Accept it.

Fact found.

By a court of law.

Now, that is some sound argument there, Vix!

Knox and Sollecito were definitively acquitted of murder by the Supreme Court. Accept it. Fact found. By a court of law.

By the way, what forensic evidence proves Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood?

 

[Vixen]

Exactly. Why would she deliberately go to the store, wait for it to open, and then buy nothing? If she had just killed her roommate the night before and was in the process of cleaning it up, she would not have been out browsing the local corner store for no reason. Obviously, she would have gone there with the intention of buying something in particular. The police believed it was bleach, but there was already a bottle and a half of bleach in Sollecito's bathroom so there was no need to buy bleach.

To conclude she was actually at the store that morning contradicts all logic. But when has that ever stopped some people from believing it?

Would, could, should.


Thankfully the courts don't worry themselves with conjecture.

 

[Vixen]

Now, that is some sound argument there, Vix!

Knox and Sollecito were definitively acquitted of murder by the Supreme Court. Accept it. Fact found. By a court of law.

By the way, what forensic evidence proves Knox washed her hands of Kercher's blood?

Vigorous rubbing of hands to shed DNA-rich samples mixed in with the murder victim's blood. The blood of the victim, Stefanoni believed, dripping from a knife and being rinsed under the tap.

We went through all this before, but clearly nothing has sunk in.

 

[bagels]

Would, could, should.


Thankfully the courts don't worry themselves with conjecture.

Thankfully a competent appellate court in 2011 got the case, freed the students, laughed at Massei, and ended the ordeal for all time.

We're just here for the sport of internet posting.

 

[Stacyhs]

Would, could, should.


Thankfully the courts don't worry themselves with conjecture.

And some people don't worry themselves with logic or common sense.

So, what's your theory as to why Knox would go to the store at that time, wait outside, go into the store and buy nothing?

 

[bagels]

I'm still waiting for Ashley Olsen's friend Amy to be arrested in connection with Ashley's murder in Florence. Did they find her DNA in her own sink yet? They should check as it's very incriminating. Pay no mind that the murder was solved and the killer was seen on CCTV alone heading towards the victim's place, as we know from the Knox case, he was probably just an unfortunate random bystander ensnared by the mastermind shedevil he never met.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vigorous rubbing of hands to shed DNA-rich samples mixed in with the murder victim's blood. The blood of the victim, Stefanoni believed, dripping from a knife and being rinsed under the tap.

We went through all this before, but clearly nothing has sunk in.

No, no, no. I said what FORENSIC EVIDENCE was presented, not conjecture.
Stefanoni herself said the source of the DNA could not be established. No epithelial cells were identified. So to conclude she washed her hands of Meredith's blood is pure conjecture. There is a completely logical and non-inculpatory explanation for Knox's DNA being mixed with Kercher's blood: the samples were taken from the sink where Knox brushed her teeth and washed herself for weeks.

Apparently the concept of "FORENSIC EVIDENCE" has not sunk in.

 

[TruthCalls]

Both Quintavalle and Curatalo gave testimony and were cross-examined by all parties.

It is the prerogative of the court to accept their testimony or dismiss it.

They accepted it.

Accept it.

Fact found.

By a court of law.

No, Massei and Nencini accepted it. Hellmann and Marasca did not.

 

[TruthCalls]

Would, could, should.


Thankfully the courts don't worry themselves with conjecture.

Exactly, and that is why the Marasca court found no relevance with Quintavalle's testimony.

 

[TruthCalls]

Vigorous rubbing of hands to shed DNA-rich samples mixed in with the murder victim's blood. The blood of the victim, Stefanoni believed, dripping from a knife and being rinsed under the tap.

We went through all this before, but clearly nothing has sunk in.

No wonder you are so reluctant to list the 'evidence' you think proves the case. Honestly, I'm a bit embarrassed for you on this one.

Amanda's DNA should have been all over that sink since she lived there and used it daily. And since DNA can't be dated there is no way to say WHEN Amanda's DNA was deposited. Therefore, finding her DNA in any sample taken from the sink proves nothing, zippo, nada, zilch. And since Guede confirms he went into the bathroom to clean up and to grab some towels, we have a very reasonable explanation for how traces of Meredith's blood made it to the sink. All told, you provided absolutely NO evidence that Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands, just as the courts had no evidence to make such a conclusion.

I'd say nice try but it really wasn't.

 

[Stacyhs]

Exactly, and that is why the Marasca court found no relevance with Quintavalle's testimony.

M/B also criticized Nencini's ignoring of Det. Volturno's testimony/memos that Quintavalle stated he had only seen Amanda in Sollecito's company:

7) The same concerns Quintavalle's testimony and the omitted evaluation of Inspector Volturno’s testimony, who drew up an internal memorandum, according to which the same Quintavalle had reported seeing Sollecito and Amanda always together.